Shabbat-B'Shabbato – ParshatBo
No 1559: 4Shevat5775 (24January2015)
AS SHABBAT APPROACHES
Snakes and Calves - by Rabbi Oury Cherki, Machon Meir, Rabbi of Beit Yehuda Congregation, Jerusalem
In the Haftarah of the Torah portion of Bo, the Prophet Yirmiyahu compares Egypt to two different living creatures: a calf and a snake. "Egypt is a beautiful calf... Its mercenaries are also like fatted lambs... Its voice will ring out like a snake."[46:20-22].
The comparison of Egypt to a snake corresponds to the link between this nation and the primordial serpent which caused Adam to sin. The serpent in Bereishit represents natural intellect, which is convoluted, earthy and deadly. In itself it is not evil (note that the sages said that the evil inclination rode on the back of the serpent but not that the serpent is the evil inclination itself), but it does not have the ability to rise up to the moral heights that come as a result of the awareness of free choice.
Egypt, like the serpent, is nothing other than a wonderful improvement over the traits of raw nature. The Nile River, the great force of nature, which brings water to the arid desert, relieves the Egyptians not only from any worries about famine but also of the need for prayer. This is the opposite of Eretz Yisrael, which "will drink water from the rain of the sky" [Devarim 11:11], with a need for the prayers and the high moral status of mankind.
Egypt did not understand the concept of freedom – not freedom of man, not freedom in the political system, and not the freedom of the laws of nature. In the era of Yosef, the magicians of Egypt could not imagine any change in the natural situation of Egypt that would lead to a famine. And that is why the dynasty of the Pharaohs in Egypt placed a snake on the same spot of the head where we wear tefillin, symbolizing the subjugation of mankind to the laws of nature. The cycle is also a trait of nature, and it is symbolized by the calf, whose foot is round, and which is "in the form of an ox that eats grass" [Tehillim 106:20]. (In Hebrew the word for calf is "eigel," from a root similar to the word for a cycle, "ma'agal.") The ox bows its head down towards the earth which provides it with its food, as opposed to man, who lifts his food up to his mouth. The serpent is also characterized by its cyclic shape, another symbol of the constant cycling of nature.
As opposed to the serpent, the Torah commands us to put at the tops of our faces square boxes with straight lines, which are an indication of a moral system which has upward and downward directions and various levels of moral values. The boxes of the tefillin carry in them a summary of our knowledge of transcendental revelation, which is expressed in the powerful hand of the redemption from Egypt and from its mental and natural limits.
The straps of the tefillin, which can be made from the leather of a calf, show that we can rise above the level of the calf and that it can be a useful tool to represent the contents of the tefillin.
The symbolism of Egypt also hints at two different sequences of the four passages from the Torah that are placed in the tefillin, one according to the opinion of Rashi and the other according to the opinion of Rabeinu Tam. Archeological excavations in Egypt have revealed the death mask of the mummy of the Pharaoh Tut-Anach-Amon, and on his forehead there is a double symbol. There are a vulture and a snake, which according to the Kabbalah correspond to the "spheres" of understanding and royalty, representing this world and the next, and this is related to the roots of the dispute between the two rabbis about the sequence in the tefillin. This is an example of the deep-seated principle that the external shell (Egypt) comes before the fruit (Yisrael).
Rabbi Cherki is the head of Brit Olam – Noahide World Center, Jerusalem
POINT OF VIEW
The Low Value of the Process of the Primaries- by Rabbi Yisrael Rozen, Dean of the Zomet Institute
The "Amazing Race" in Israel
I closely followed the primary elections in the Bayit Yehudi Party, in terms of both my political interests and my personal acquaintance with some of the candidates, and I am upset by the process involved and by the disappointment of many men and women who participated. I assume that a similar situation exists in other parties which have primaries, opening up a competitive free market for those who want to be members of the Israeli Knesset.On the other hand there is an alternative mechanism of a"scepter" granting a "reserved" spot on the slate – some will be chosen by having "the King stretch out his golden scepter to him" (see Esther 4:11).
I have the greatest sympathy for the large expenses that every candidate was forced to expend in order to support his or her candidacy and to glorify his traits – an amount that is estimated to be more than a hundred thousand Shekels each (in the Bayit Yehudi Party). Those who were not selected threw away a large sum of money. The incumbents – who have already demonstrated their skills in the past – were forced to pay the full price in order to make sure that they will be able to continue their work. And who knows if they will not be forced to once again dig into their savings or search for contributors in another year and a half? Those lucky ones who have received or will receive a "reserved" spot by means of the scepter of the head of the party will keep their money and will still expect to be rewarded with fame and a demanding job. Even if for now they have been given a "lucky break" without any need to invest their own funds, my advice to them is to open a savings account in order to be ready for the next race, when they may not be chosen by the all-powerful scepter, possibly because they will be too successful in their endeavors.
And since we brought up the financial issues involved in being a candidate, I must say that I find myself wondering if enough worthy people have the means to run for a seat in the Israeli Knesset. Let us suppose, for example, that in the Bayit Yehudi some people want to run whose name is Zvulun (Hammer or Orlev), Yitzchak (Levi or Rafael), or perhaps Zerach or Shaki, Yossel or Amsalem – but who do not have financial backing or are not willing to be photographed in attractive photos. Will they be forced to wait until their hair is white, such that we will lose the services of an excellent parliamentarian? And I have not yet mentioned people with experience in security matters, prominent experts in the fields of education and law, financial geniuses and social knights. Will the other candidates in the race pass them by with a wave of the hand, or with an "istera balagina" (a small coin that makes a loud noise when shaken inside a closed case)?
What Alternative is There?
The truth is that I have always tended to prefer the other possibility – to have a "nominating committee"choose the candidates But this has now returned at a much lower level than before, where it has morphed into the "nominating chairman" of the party involved. The idea is to choose a slate that is filled with prominent figures who are loyal to the general principles of the party, who have proven abilities, or who can be viewed as attractive vote-getters. At the same time, the "committee" is meant to create balanced and fair representation with respect to sub-sectors, communities, peripheral constituencies, gender, age, and many similar criteria. All those who disparaged the "nominating committees" as an outmoded and nondemocratic technique now obtain the new format in many parties, where it has become the "nominating chairman," whose decisions are final. This is a person who has taken for himself or herself the golden scepter as a means of choosing the entire staff, or a leader who demands that he be allowed to fill "one reserved position out of every five" on the slate. And there you have it – a "nominating committee" consisting of a single "unanimous" vote.
There are "angel-like" parties where the entire mix is born and created as the personal initiative of the all-powerful leader. The entire party was created by his declaration and consists of his exhaled hot air, and "the entire edifice was only created to be shared with him" (see Berachot 6b). It is by all means absolutely justified, reasonable, and correct that a peacock should be allowed to choose the coloring of its own tail – and who cares about democracy anyway? Such a born star can appoint assistants as he sees fit, yes-men all, and reward them with jobs as MK's.But we should take into account that a star-filled party tends to reach an end after one or two terms, and they are the worst examples of democracy.
However, my interest lies in the ideological parties. Even if they have a leader who is prominent and supported by excellent public relations, these parties existed before the leader arose and will continue to exist after he has fallen into oblivion. What do I think about these parties? What would I do if I were given an opportunity to choose how they would build a slate?
Combine the Two Methods
I understand that it is impossible to turn the wheel back and to return to the method of the "nominating committees." On the other hand, we wrote above criticizing the expensive primaries which do not leave any room for many very worthy candidates. I therefore say that the technique of reserved places on the slate is a worthy one, as long as the decisions on filling the places will not be made by a single individual. If I were given free reign I would suggest three main principles and one minor addition in choosing a slate for an ideological party (with more details to be added later):
(1) The slate will consist half of figures in "reserved" positions and half of people who run in primaries. They will be put on the list one after another.
(2) Those who are running in the primaries will be strictly limited on the amount of money that they are allowed to spend and on their advertising, limits that will be set by the institutions of the party involved.
(3) The "reserved" spots will be filled by a "nominating committee" which will be appointed by one of the institutions of the party. The committee will be allowed to choose people who ran on their own but failed, if they suit the ideals of the party. And here is one other "minor" note: Among every ten people on the slate, there must be at least one woman. This is sufficient, and there is no need to add more women, if they were not elected in the primaries or picked by the "nominating committee" in light of their public activities.
LET YOUR WELLSPRINGS BURST FORTH
Rabbi Ashkenazi - by Rabbi Moshe Shilat, Director of "The Torah of Chabad for Yeshiva Students"
(1) A Slave of G-d, a Servant of G-d, and One who does not Serve
"A slave of G-d" is a term for a righteous man who has completely succeeded in eradicating the evil within him and has become a slave. He labored ("avad") harder and harder, until he became a slave ("eved"), the same form of the word as "melech" and "chacham" – a king or a wise man. As opposed to this, the image of an "average man" as described in the Tanya - a person who has both good and evil inclinations, where the good always wins in the end, is called a "servant" of G-d. He performs his labors continuously ("oved"), because the evil inclination does not let up for a moment. He must always renew his efforts, with a new approach to counter the evil inclination, with its constant innovations that challenge the good inclination. A person who has acquired the title of a slave has no need for such innovative thinking because he is in a state of belittling himself in the name of G-d.
Both alternatives have their benefits. However, there is also a third type of person who always acts in a way that is good but is not called a servant of G-d. This is a person who performs in a perfectly correct way, but no more than that. He becomes accustomed to acting in this way and goes no further, he will never "go beyond himself" and he will never change his behavior. The Talmud teaches us a remarkable distinction. The difference between "a servant of G-d" and "one who does not serve Him" is that one reviews his studies a hundred times and the other reviews them a hundred and one times. A hundred is a large number, but this is normal behavior – it is the number of times study was reviewed. Once this becomes an ingrained habit it describes a person "who does not serve Him." However, the one hundred and first time is an innovation, a modification of the norm which can almost be as difficult as the first hundred times of reviewing the material.
One who succeeds in being righteous and eradicates evil completely, to be a true "slave of G-d," has achieved a happy status. But not everybody is able to be completely righteous, and this is not the goal of most people. The Holy One, Blessed be He, finds the greatest pleasure in the "average" people, who have both good and evil inclinations but who labor in happiness, always innovating and never getting caught in the same place.
(2) The Rabbi of Kefar Chabad
A few months ago we moved to a different house in Kefar Chabad, from the "Levi Yitzchak" neighborhood to the "neighborhood of the Rav" (this is the simple name given to the area where the rabbi lived). Rabbi Mordechai Shmuel Ashkenazi suddenly passed away a few days ago, in the middle of the day, while he was on a trip to his father's grave in Teveriya, on the date of the father's death. Rabbi Ashkenazi was seventy years old, and the day that he passed away was the fortieth anniversary of when he began his role as the rabbi of Kefar Chabad.
Rabbi Ashkenazi was a figure who was always adding new things. His labor for G-d was never staticbut was always tempestuous. He studied with dedication and excitement, and he prayed with great emotion.
The rabbi was fastidious. Every resident of Kefar Chabad knew that there was no appeal after his word was given. He went into every realm, including those that are complex and sensitive, and he made decisions. But in everything he did his kind heart was always evident. As a new congregant, I saw how he treated a person who was evidently mentally disturbed. The rabbi was the man's best friend, they would always sit down to talk after the prayers were over, and the rabbi would offer him some tobacco. They would sit together sniffing the tobacco like two men who had been friendsfrom childhood. I realized this week that while Kefar Chabad has lost a rabbi, this man has lost a friend.
I also saw that Rabbi Ashkenazi was no less strict in halacha than the most stringent of the rabbis of Brisk. For example, he had unusual stringencies in blowing the shofar, including detailed halacha and extra piety. When the Torah was read, he would approach and make sure to hear every single sound, no less than when he was listening to the reading of the Megillah on Purim. On the other hand, he would sit in a "hisvaaduss" in the synagogue at noon on Shabbat in the role of an elderly Chassid full of charm, sharing with us his memories of warm Chassidic characters from his father's home in the small villages of Russia. He was a true Chassidic rabbi. Let his memory be blessed.
THE LIGHT STARTS IN THE EAST
What is the Right Way to Express Criticism?– by Chezi Cohen, Yeshivat Maaleh Gilboa and Midreshet Ein Hanatziv
Rabbi Mordechai Sharabi (1908-1983)
Rabbi Mordechai Sharabi was a prominent Kabbalistic master who lived in Jerusalem. He established the Kabbalah yeshiva "Nahar Shalom" and was known as the "Head of the Community of those Providing Guidance." He was born in Yemen, was orphaned as a child, studied Torah with his grandfather, Rabbi Tha'izi, and was ordained as a rabbi. In 1932 he made Aliyah and joined the staff of the Kabbalistic yeshiva Beit El. Rabbi Sharabi was famous as a holy man and a master of wonders. Many people came to his home, which was wide open to anybody who wanted advice or a blessing. He was widely known for his expertise in the Kabbalah, and the greatest of the Kabbalah masters would share their doubts with him, looking for solutions. He was careful not to gain any benefit from the contributions he received, and he maintained a very simple and humble lifestyle.
* * * * * *
One morning the chazzan took his usual position in Rabbi Mordechai Sharabi's synagogue. In a surprising move, the rabbi turned to him, patted him on the back, and said, "You are a precious man who fears G-d, and you are worthy of being a chazzan. But today you cannot perform this duty because this morning you had an argument with your wife and hurt her feelings. You can return to serve as a chazzan only after you have come to terms with her."